I wish the Leas-Chathaoirleach, the Leader and colleagues here a restful break albeit I am sure that, in keeping with the story of politicians' lives, a great deal of work will be done during the coming months. I hope we come back to a session in which there is respect for conscience voting. I want to see less of the brutal imposition of the party Whip on issues. I hope also that we will scrutinise proposals thoroughly and properly and not just jump on bandwagons as happens here from time to time.

A good example of what I mean was the original proposal for a straightforward deletion of Article 41.2, the clause of the Constitution referring to women's work in the home and their not being obliged by economic necessity to work outside the home. At the Constitutional Convention, 90% of participants voted against an outright deletion and to replace it with something gender neutral. Initially, the Government floated the idea that it would delete the provision simpliciter and the Taoiseach engaged in all sorts of spin-doctored references to how sexist and patriarchal it all was. However, that was without a more considered reflection on what the provision was supposed to be about in the first place. It was included in the Constitution at a time of considerably more poverty than exists in the country now and when there was a real social good in at least aspiring to the idea that mothers in the home would not be forced to work outside it.

The first issue we need to consider is how the provision received nothing but lipservice over the years. We saw with the tax individualisation measure some years ago how little value successive Governments have placed on the care being provided by parents in the home. While I am glad the Government has pulled back and there will be further consideration of what needs to be done, I ask why there was major flag-flying about straight deletion without any consideration here, as opposed to within the Constitutional Convention, of what should be included in the Constitution. There is a great deal more we need to do to value the parenting taking place in the home, whether by fathers or mothers. I hope we will have a more reflective politics on foot of the announcement of a different way of proceeding on that issue.

I intend to table an amendment to the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill later. Committee and Remaining Stages are scheduled and I intend to raise a matter on Committee Stage at the very least which may well be the subject of an amendment on Report Stage. Can the Leader reassure me that there will be no obstacle to my tabling of such an amendment if I can find support for it? I understand from the officials in the House that it will not be possible.

That is not my decision.

Another thing I thought we had moved away from was the language and culture of guillotining.

Amendments are-----

I hope anyone seeking to propose amendments on Committee Stage would-----

On a point of information, the Senator is being mischievously disingenuous.

No. Amendments are not a matter for the Leader.

The Senator is part of a group that agrees the Order of Business every week.

Amendments are ruled in or out of order in the normal course and it is not a matter for the Leader.

As I said, I hope that, whatever is agreed by groups on the Order of Business, legislators who wish to table amendments between Stages will always be facilitated. To allow otherwise sends a very bad message.

That has not been the case.

We have quite a lot of legislation coming at the tail end of the session as, sadly, happens to often.

I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to clarify the record. The Senator is misleading the House deliberately and he knows he is.

He is finished.

I asked a question. Will I be facilitated?

Order. There is one other speaker, Senator Ó Ríordáin.

Senator Mullen should read his emails.